Hawk, I form my opinions by reading from the media; conservative as well as liberal.
Nothing wrong with that.. I regularly read both the Washington Post and Washington Times (almost every day).
And I don't have a problem with people basing some portion of their opinions on media articles, so long as they are substantive and not rhetorical.
Hence I do not care to bring evidence.
And that's contrary to the spirit of this thread. The purpose of even having this forum is for participants to post their opinions in a manner that provides a factual basis for their ideas, so that WE ALL can gain a clearer understanding of the forces at work.
But that requires US ALL to avoid viewing international foreign policy merely from the perspective of what the US has, or hasn't done. We must include ALL significant influences, domestic and international. And we must seek to understand the competing agendas and power struggles that are prevalent in every society.
As to your links which you claim support your assertion that the "US promoted Pakistan to create the regional instability and keep the countries of the region poor, weak and constantly fight amongst themselves".
But what we do know is that the US had maintained a continuous degree of pressure upon Pakistan to not permit its territory to become the breeding ground for Islamic militancy as early as 1992, not just beginning in 2002:
jammu-kashmir.com
Furthermore, were your theory credible, then why are you blaming Bush for the activities of the ISI when the creation of the Taliban occurred under the Clinton Administration?
If any nation can be accused of trying to create instability in the region, I would say it was China and N. Korea, both of whom sold nuclear technology to that country.
And Is Pakistan a hotbed of terrorism? Certainly parts of it are. But is is relatively contained at the moment? Yes. Has Musharraf "seen the light" with regard to what side of this war on terrorism he wants to be on? I believe so.
But is Pakistan/Kashmir the head of the Islamo-Fascist "snake"? No. That clearly lies in Saudi Arabia where Wahhabism has prevailed, and in some cases nutured and funded these militants and their madrassas.
And to defeat Islamo-Fascism, we have to "cut off" the head of that snake so that it can no longer support the body of militants which previously relied upon its support.
But do we dare directly attack SA, risking an all-out clash of civilizations between the Christian west and Muslim east?
Absolutely not...
But do we "send a signal" to Saudi Arabia by invading Iraq, restoring its economy and oil production, and making it a regional rival to SA and Iran?
Sounds like a pretty smart idea to me..
Hawk |
